Not that they didn&rsquo;t already know, but if city councilors had any doubt as to just how much opposition there is to the slots parlor being proposed for the old Wyman-Gordon site along Madison Street, it was pretty much erased by well over 100 people who packed the Hibernian Cultural Center Monday night. They may not speak for all the voters in Worcester, but with most of them saying they live in or around the Canal District and Green Island, the dozens who spoke in passionate protest of Mass Gaming Entertainment LLC&rsquo;s planned slots casino made it clear the project is not a sure bet at the polls.

The city has long wanted to develop the largely barren land at the old Wyman-Gordon site along Madison Street.

Which leads to an interesting question: Should councilors direct City Manager Mike O&rsquo;Brien not to negotiate a host agreement with MGE, whose parent company is Rush Street Gaming led by casino magnate Neil Bluhm? The general message being delivered to the public is that the city must hammer out an agreement, which would include any suggested measures of mediation, with Bluhm&rsquo;s posse of high rollers. After that would be a citywide vote, leaving the slot parlor&rsquo;s fate directly in the hands of voters. However, under the gaming legislation passed by the state, there is no requirement that a city or town enter a host agreement or even hold an election.

If the city did not want to pursue a host agreement, it would basically be game over for the slots parlor. Even with that option, several councilors say they believe the vote should go forward because it is part of the democratic process.

&ldquo;The developer would not be able to move forward in a community that is not willing to negotiate a host community agreement,&rdquo; says Elaine Driscoll, a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC), which is responsible for awarding the state&rsquo;s three casino and single slots parlor licenses. Under that scenario, the developer could approach another potential host community, similar to what Steve Wynn did in Everett when Foxborough officials basically said, &ldquo;Thanks, but not thanks&rdquo; to his casino proposal.

&ldquo;The Gaming Act was purposefully designed to allow for a significant amount of local control,&rdquo; Driscoll says. &ldquo;Town leadership must first decide if it is willing to negotiate a Host Community Agreement. If town leadership opts not to proceed then the project does not move forward.&rdquo;

Four councilors reached for comment on Tuesday were in agreement that voters should make the ultimate determination, not an elected body. Some also conceded that the full-service hotel proposed by developer Richard Friedman of Carpenter and Co., which is attached to Bluhm&rsquo;s plan but would be built downtown, is a factor in determining whether to welcome the slots parlor.

&ldquo;My opinion is that there are clearly very diverse opinions around the city,&rdquo; says District 5 Councilor Bill Eddy, who chairs the Standing Committee on Public Safety. His panel co-hosted Monday&rsquo;s public hearing with the Committee on Economic Development. &ldquo;I am not going to vote to have the council assert its will ahead of the public. Some of my colleagues may think they&rsquo;re smarter than the voters, I think voters can make up their own minds.&rdquo;

District 4 Councilor Sarai Rivera, who counts among her constituents some of the residents living around the proposed site, says the democratic process should be allowed to play out.

&ldquo;Regardless if there are 10 people for and 300 against, those 10 still have a right to the democratic process,&rdquo; Rivera says. &ldquo;I want to make sure the democratic process is not hindered in any way.&rdquo;

More than one person speaking at Monday&rsquo;s meeting, which was intended to solicit input on a host agreement, but became a largely anti-slots parlor demonstration, wondered why, if the deal is so good for the city, there had to be an agreement in place to protect it. Some, either publicly or privately, suggested the city shut down the process altogether.

&ldquo;I don&rsquo;t think it&rsquo;s in the best interest of the city to not even look at a development that offers up to 600 jobs when the developer says he&rsquo;ll give preference to Worcester residents,&rdquo; District 3 City Councilor George Russell says.

Muddying the waters when it comes to the slots debate is the huge carrot Friedman is dangling in front of the city in the form of a full-service hotel. The city is low on overnight rooms and the kinds of amenities, such as conference rooms, that help attract large-scale events. There is a proposed new Hampton Inn near Gateway Park, but there is some opposition on the council for that and it is not a full-service hotel.

&ldquo;Of course, it&rsquo;s part of what you&rsquo;re looking at,&rdquo; Russell says of the prospect of new hotel in downtown Worcester. &ldquo;If Friedman is coming to town and saying I can only do this tied to slots, we need a Class 'A' hotel.&rdquo;

Asked whether he thought the city could land the type of hotel it wants without tying it to a slots parlor, Eddy says: &ldquo;We haven&rsquo;t been successful putting a hotel [downtown]. It&rsquo;s been a stated goal to put one there. If we could do it, we would have done it already.&rdquo;